• by Tony Jarvis , Op-Ed Contributor, June 12, 2013

The following is a guest commentary from industry researcher Tony Jarvis, responding to a recent TVBlog on competition in the online measurement space. Jarvis runs Olympic Media Consultancy and has worked with clients such as P&G and GlaxoSmithKline on the agency side.

In a TVBlog titled “Nielsen Poised To Win Online Measurement Derby” that ran June 4, author David Goetzl really should have seen through the somewhat misguided evaluation by Bernstein analyst Todd Juenger during the recent comScore investment day.

I believe his (and Todd's) conclusion could not be further from the “truth.” The industry is tired of the often “high cost -- low value/quality” metrics provided by Nielsen, an unregulated U.S. monopoly in the TV measurement arena, which is now competing with comScore in the "Online Measurement Derby."

Once and for all, the financial analysts and the trade press must accept that while marketers do indeed need to understand how various media work together, the interrelationship metrics do NOT need to be measured by the same company providing any of the individual media currency data. This applies especially to media measurement companies that do not offer a “competitive cost -- high value/quality” solution.

It was refreshingly agreed by a blue ribbon panel at the recent OMMA Video Conference that TV audience measurement provided by Nielsen, notably in local markets, has been “broken” in this country for years. Nielsen provides four measures of TV: three for spot or local TV based on AQH and one for network based on Average Minute (sort of!) ... each based on different methodologies and none of which are truly comparable to each other. The panel also agreed that media currency measurement in the U.S. is a “mess."

In short, why would any media or ad professional want comparability between an inferior online service (Nielsen, based on Todd's comments) to that same company's antediluvian, non-comparable (to online) various TV measures, which are not even comparable between themselves?!

From every possible industry perspective, it is imperative that comScore wins the online measurement derby. That being said, the competition to comScore from Nielsen in this arena will keep our online metrics at the “optimum competitive cost -- high value/quality” levels.

So how do we achieve the same “optimum cost -- value/quality” relationship for TV ratings, notably for spot TV? By protecting the existing competition between Arbitron and Nielsen.

The potential of current and future partnerships by Arbitron with “smaller” players – comScore, Rentrak, TRA; etc. -- will significantly increase the pressure on Nielsen to deliver the relative cost, value quality and innovations the industry has long needed.

Arbitron's survival from the claws of Nielsen will significantly benefit cross-platform audience measurement (Arbitron + comScore) as well as TV measurement (spot and cable) based on PPM + STB. With a strong competitor in TV measurement, American consumers will finally be served with local programming based on 21st century metrics using 21st century technologies and methodologies.

Todd Juenger argued: “Simplicity -- one company offering multi-channel currencies -- can't be underestimated in large institutions.” Such naiveté is a recipe for a continuation of an unnecessary and very expensive “mess.”

advertisement

advertisement